Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

New Clause 58

Charities that have “received public assistance”
‘(1) For the purposes of this Part a registered charity has received public assistance if at least one of the following conditions is satisfied.
(2) Condition 1 is that the charity has received financial assistance from the HCA under section 22.
(3) Condition 2 is that the charity has received financial assistance under section 24 of the Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9) (assistance for privately let housing accommodation).
(4) Condition 3 is that the charity has had housing transferred to it pursuant to—
(a) a large scale disposal, within the meaning of section 34 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68), for which consent was required under section 32 or 43 of that Act, or
(b) a qualifying disposal that was made under section 135 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (c. 28).
(5) Condition 4 is that the charity has received a grant or loan under—
(a) section 18 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (social housing grants),
(b) section 22 of that Act (assistance from local authorities),
(c) section 58 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (c. 69) (grants or loans by local authorities),
(d) section 50 of the Housing Act 1988 (c. 50), section 41 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 or any enactment replaced by that section (housing association grant),
(e) section 51 of the Housing Act 1988 (c. 50) or section 54 or 55 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (c. 69) (revenue deficit grant or hostel deficit grant),
(f) section 79 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (c. 69) (loans by Housing Corporation),
(g) section 31 of the Housing Act 1974 (c. 44) (management grants), or
(h) any enactment mentioned in paragraph 2 or 3 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Associations Act 1985 (c. 69) (pre-1974 grants and certain loans).’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Social housing tenant mobility
‘The Secretary of State, in accordance with powers contained in section 168 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42), shall introduce a scheme to facilitate moves to and from the homes of tenants of social housing in England and shall consult with such bodies as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of registered providers of social housing and local government.’.—[Grant Shapps.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Grant Shapps: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are into the last lap. The new clause relates to housing association and local authority tenants who want to move in or out of their constituencies, and it is modelled on other previous schemes. People often want to move from one constituency to another. No doubt members of the Committee have met constituents who are anxious to move to another part of the country, perhaps because of an elderly parent who lives elsewhere, work or the need to move near to their parents for help with child care. People have many social and economic reasons for wanting to transfer their social housing.
Without mobility, we end up with families in the wrong size houses. Unlike owner-occupiers or tenants who can move more flexibly, it is sometimes difficult for people in social housing to move property, because of the lack of a proper scheme to help them to do so. Many members of the Committee will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, who cannot be here today, introduced the national mobility scheme when he was Minister in 1981—it was launched by local authorities and new towns in England and Wales. In the 1990s, again under my right hon. Friend, the Housing Mobility and Exchange Service, HOMES, took over.

Lyn Brown: It did not work.

Grant Shapps: The fact that 100,000 tenants moved under that scheme made it popular and successful. The current Government inherited it in 1997, but it collapsed in May 2007 due to apparent mismanagement. The remaining staff of HOMES, which had been rebranded as Move UK, lost their jobs, and tens of thousands of tenants have since been left in the lurch.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire held an Adjournment debate on the subject in June 2007, when the then Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), said:
“What I have described is a range of interim measures that we put in place when Move UK was terminated, as well as a range of transitional schemes that enable people to experience some of the benefits that were previously available while we move to a point at which we can provide something that addresses the issues raised in the Hills report”.——[Official Report, 5 June 2007; Vol. 461, c.236-7]
It certainly sounded as though there was an intention to solve the problem. Surely the Housing and Regeneration Bill should reflect that moment, which is why I have tabled new clause 6.
With growth schemes and the requirement for the Thames Gateway to assist with housing pressures, and possibly to fill the homes with people who have moved from elsewhere in the country, a mobility scheme is essential. My right hon. Friend and I think that, and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is also in full agreement. In July 2007, he said that the
“Government must act very speedily indeed. The current framework is really not acceptable; the existing machinery has collapsed and there is no realistic opportunity for social tenants in many parts of the country to move outside their area...I am afraid that this is a very serious position, and it is wholly in conflict with the stated objectives of Government policy and those of the Hills review.”——[Official Report, 5 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 233.]
The Minister responded:
“We are working to address all the issues raised by the Hills review, including concerns about low levels of mobility. The review provides an objective, comprehensive platform that can inform our future development.”
She then concluded:
“people need social mobility if we are to support sustainable, cohesive communities ... the Government continue to take the issue of housing mobility for social housing tenants seriously.”——[Official Report, 5 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 236-8.]
This is surely the moment for the Government to act. There seems to be a consensus, pretty much on both sides of the House but certainly within the Government, on this issue. In that light, I ask the Minister carefully to consider new clause 6. If he does not feel able to accept it at this stage, then perhaps we can return to it on Report, because it would genuinely improve the Bill.

Margaret Moran: We are coming to the conclusion of this Bill. Many people are pleased about that, so I shall keep my contribution brief. I know what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire would say, if he were here, although I do not support the amendment. As the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield has said, the Government intend to rectify the absence of a mobility scheme. I simply want to put some fire in their belly and to urge some speed on the matter. If my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire were here, he would remind us that the HOMES scheme, which was the main mobility scheme for RSL tenants, lasted for many years. Among the many schemes it comprised were things like the seaside and country homes scheme, from which many of my constituents benefited. Indeed, when I was chair of housing in Lewisham, we used that scheme very successfully to tackle under-occupation. It addressed the issues of elderly people who needed to be near relatives or who wanted to retire to a place where they felt more comfortable, thus releasing family-sized homes in Lewisham.
Parts of the scheme were successful, but it has to be acknowledged that the HOMES scheme itself was not entirely successful, because the levels of mobility were never as high as intended and the relationship between different RSLs was rather cumbersome. I remember in my own housing association the difficulties in matching properties between housing association tenants. Many housing associations have very small numbers of units scattered across large areas—either across London or, in some cases, across parts of the country. That applies in my constituency, where we do not have major stocks of RSL units. We have several RSLs that have relatively small numbers of units, which makes mobility within the borough almost impossible. As our Luton housing strategy states, there is no way in which we can tackle housing within our borough boundaries.
A great deal of our hope for that strategy rests on the Bill and on the Milton Keynes-south midlands growth area, but before that scheme comes to fruition, we have an acute crisis where we simply cannot accommodate people within the borough boundary. Furthermore, people who need to move for employment purposes are finding it incredibly difficult, particularly if they are RSL tenants. I have cases upon cases—I had another one again this week—where large families in RSL accommodation, many of whom are very overcrowded, need to move either for employment reasons or because they are severely overcrowded and large units simply do not exist within the borough. They are prepared to move outside the borough to accommodate their family’s needs, but they cannot do that because of the difficulties of moving between RSLs. They therefore find themselves in a situation where they are playing ping-pong, being passed between the RSL and the local authority in trying to find somewhere suitable for their needs.
The absence of a proper mobility system does not make it for easy for people who are in extreme housing circumstances, people who need to move for employment reasons and elderly people who need to be near their family for caring purposes. We know that the replacement for HOMES was not the best success, to put it politely. Let us be frank: it was a pig’s ear of a system that simply did not work—we all have to be frank. Lots of money was put into a system that was clearly not capable of dealing with it.
If we are honest, since then we have all to a large extent recoiled from looking at the issue, because, having experienced such an unsuccessful system, the complexity of trying to establish another system has put this debate on the back burner. That is a tragedy, because it is not beyond the wit of the Government to come up with a system that can work, despite the unfortunate occurrence with the replacement to HOMES.
The former Minister for Housing, now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, indicated that she was in favour of a regional choice-based lettings scheme. I accept that there is a role for such a scheme, but I simply point out that in many areas we have not even got to a local choice-based lettings scheme. In my constituency, the housing department is considering one, but we have not got there, and my hon. Friend the Minister has indicated that the situation is the same in his local authority. We are some way off having even local schemes from which to build a regional choice-based system.
I stress the urgency of the issue. This Bill and the Hills report, which has been mentioned, stress the need for mobility within the social housing sector, a point with which we all agree because we see it in our casework on a day-to-day basis. If we are to make that a reality, we need to do it speedily. I am not convinced that waiting for local authorities to get up to speed with local choice-based lettings systems and then trying to build a regional choice-based lettings system on top of that will have the speedy impact that we need. I therefore urge the Minister to consider how we can find a replacement on a national level that has a regional choice-based lettings system built into it and that is based on the principle of a choice-based lettings system—such systems are extremely effective, when they work well. We need a national system.
The fact that we have had a rather painful time with the replacement of HOMES should not undermine the fact that we need a replacement, and we need it as speedily as possible, if we are to achieve the aims set out in this Bill.

Nick Raynsford: I reiterate the point about the importance of mobility. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield was kind enough to quote me at great length on the subject, so I need not add much more, other than to say that there have been mobility schemes of various forms for a long time. Way back before HOMES, there were other arrangements.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South has rightly highlighted, the difficulty with schemes that relate to only one type of landlord or to one area is that they often fail to promote mobility on the scale that is needed. There is a need to bring those schemes together.
Many years ago, in a previous incarnation, I was involved in setting up a housing association mobility scheme which went under the happy name of HALO, the housing association liaison office. That was limited to housing associations, which was not sufficient, so it had to be widened to bring in local authorities. London is currently exploring the options for a mobility scheme. Good progress has been made with a commitment of, I think, 5 per cent. of the housing stock from all the participating London boroughs. This is a good commitment to trying to ensure a sufficient number of homes to give momentum to the objective, but that is limited to London.
I press my hon. Friend the Minister to give a positive response to the new clause, because it is about meeting a need and the current arrangements are unsatisfactory. The collapse of Move UK was deplorable and I do not think that it will go down in the annals as one of the finer administrative performances of this Government. I wholeheartedly endorse the view expressed by the right hon. Member for South-West Hampshire. [Hon. Members: “North-West.”] I always get it wrong. I endorse the view expressed by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire that something must be done. The Member for South-West Bedfordshire is no longer with us. [Hon. Members: “North-East.”] The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire is no longer with us. The answer to that problem is to stop digging, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will provide a favourable response.

Lembit Öpik: The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich talks about his halo, which proves what I have always suspected: he is a little angel. The new clause has been well discussed already. It is obviously sensible and I support it. I hope that the Minister this time does not have to disagree fundamentally with something simply because it came from the Opposition.

Iain Wright: Good morning to you, Mr. Benton, and the rest of the Committee. I fully understand the intention and purpose behind the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield. I agree with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that there is a political consensus about it. I and the Government agree that mobility is important; we have already announced measures to increase opportunities for people to move, and I will come to those shortly. The ability to fund such mobility schemes is already contained in section 168 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which gives the Secretary of State the power to make grants or loans towards the cost of arrangements for enabling or assisting tenants to move in England, Wales or Scotland. Therefore, although I agree with everything that has been said in Committee this morning, the new clause is unnecessary. I want to set out the Government’s policy on record. The Government are committed to improving and increasing the options to move available to social housing tenants. As the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield has said and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South has reiterated, the benefits to individual tenants are obvious to us all. Grandparents want to move to be with their grandchildren, families want to be closer together and people want to move to take up employment opportunities and we should facilitate that as much as possible.
Mobility is also important for the wider social housing agenda. Enabling an elderly person to move from a property that is perhaps too big for their needs to a smaller home nearer to their grandchildren creates a vacant property that can be used for an overcrowded family. We debated the importance of freeing up such properties to help relieve overcrowding when we were discussing new clauses 13 to 33 last week. In that respect, there is an awful lot to do and I do not want to reiterate the points that have been made already about the difficulties with previous national mobility schemes. Where we are now and where we are heading towards are the important points to address.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), when she was Minister for Housing and Planning, set out in December last month the Government’s programme for making social housing fairer, more effective and more personal. As I have said, we recognise that that is not meeting the needs of all tenants and mobility plays an important part in changing that, but we want to learn from the mistakes of the past. We need to avoid them and we need to ensure that we meet the needs of those who require social housing and those who want to move within and into social housing. The number of new lettings in the social housing sector fell from 591,200 in 1998-89 to 409,400 in 2005-06, and that has reduced the number of opportunities for people to move. Most moves are now local, and arranged by landlords. The proportion of moves through a mobility scheme as a percentage of overall lets fell between 1998-99 and 2005-06 from 1.48 per cent. to 0.36 per cent. so there is a challenge there and we need to increase the number of moves. There are three broad areas of mobility that need addressing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South touched on, and we have already taken steps to improve opportunities in each. Those three areas are local, sub-regional and national.
At the local level, research by Ipsos MORI on barriers to mobility has shown that most tenants wishing to move want to do so locally, staying within five miles of their existing home, and enabling them to retain social and cultural ties. That certainly seems true of my own constituency.
Existing social housing tenants seeking a move currently have to demonstrate that they have a particular housing need, in order to be rehoused in another area in the same way as new applicants on the waiting list. Some local authorities already give priority to their tenants who wish to downsize. However, this is not currently a national reasonable preference category, and some authorities do not take this into account in their allocation scheme. We want to ensure that all local authorities offer their tenants the opportunity to downsize.
We recognise that many tenants will want to remain living in the family home where they raised their children, and they will be able to do so. However, we need to ensure that the existing housing stock is used to best effect—the subject of a very good debate on overcrowding we had in Committee last week. We want to ensure that tenants have the opportunity to downsize—wherever they live—so that large family homes can be allocated to families with children, or those living in overcrowded conditions.

Margaret Moran: I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is important that priority is given to homes that are under-occupied, to release family homes. When my right hon. Friend, the Member for North-West Hampshire and I spent many a happy year on the HOMES scheme, our priority was housing need. I notice that some London authorities are talking about moving away from housing need as the main priority for allocating housing in future. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity—notwithstanding what he has just said—to re-emphasise the fact that housing need will be the main criteria, rather than any others that seem to be emerging from some London authorities?

Iain Wright: That is an important point. I want to make sure that everybody, regardless of status, has the appropriate house. As I said, some people may need assistance to achieve that. We have reiterated time and again in this Committee the need to ensure that houses that are too large for people’s current needs are allocated accordingly. That helps free up supply of housing to allow new families to come in. As I said, we want to retain as much as possible.
My constituency will be very similar to others in that I often think of it—I talk about Sheffield in a similar way—as the largest village in the world.

Angela Smith: Sheffield is.

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend says that Sheffield is. People do want to stay in close areas—to be close to their families; their children and grandchildren. Time and time again, a grandmother comes to see me and says “I am living in a three-bedroom council house and would like a bungalow close to my family. So that the grandchildren can stay, I need two bedrooms. I also would like to stay in the same area, as that will enable my daughter to go out to work.” That is crucial. Such a move increases employment opportunities and we need to be doing as much as possible to ensure that it can happen. I think that is the real challenge to any local, sub-regional or national mobility scheme.
May I go on to sub-regional allocations? Choice-based letting schemes give people the flexibility to choose where they want to live in an area, and then to bid for properties. My right hon. Friend the previous Minister for Housing and Planning announced in December that we would take this further with the investment of £1.8 million to deliver 18 new choice-based letting sub-regional schemes, which give people the opportunity to move across local authority borders. 
To take my own particular area as an example, Hartlepool is part of the Tees Valley, and it could be that the vast majority of people who want to move, want to do so within the boundaries of Hartlepool local authority. However, there will be a number of people whose families have moved to Middlesbrough or Stockton and they will want to move within that sub-region. So we need to help that as much as possible.
An additional £2 million investment over the next two years will enable all councils to be part of such a sub-regional scheme by 2010. Eleven schemes are already up and running and the others will be active by 2010. Cross-boundary mobility is planned in 86 per cent. of these schemes, with most proposing to put aside a percentage of their lets for sub-regional mobility moves.
Such schemes as Home Selector in Guildford, Hart, Rushmore and Waverley have already ring-fenced a set 10 per cent. of the housing supply for cross-boundary mobility moves. Other schemes, including those in East Devon and the Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and Amber Valley, enable all home-seekers to apply for properties across all the local authorities involved.
The Government have agreed funding of £760,000 over the next two years for the implementation of a London-wide accessible housing register as part of the pan-London choice. It is known as Capital Moves. This offers people the chance to move across different London authorities. London councils will deliver Capital Moves and are encouraging participation from all 33 London boroughs. The Capital Moves partners also include other stakeholders, such as the Greater London Authority, the Housing Corporation and relevant registered social landlords.
There are a further 14 sub-regional schemes in development, of which five schemes include the ring-fencing of between 5 and 25 per cent. of the housing supply for mobility purposes. Four other local authorities have already committed to allowing sub-regional mobility applicants to bid for any of their available housing supply. The remainder are considering the level of commitment to mobility. So the main mechanism for local and sub-regional moves is well established, with schemes already funded in 65 per cent. of local authorities and additional investment available to other local authorities by 2010.
We have discussed sub-regions, so now I come on to national schemes. Our challenge is to make sure that we can meet the needs of those who wish to move nationally, from one sub-region to another, and that is a big challenge. We are working with the Housing Corporation and key social landlords and authorities to develop proposals for increasing mobility across the country. For example, we are looking at whether a percentage of lets should be reserved and pooled for those looking to move further afield. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South mentioned the seaside and country homes mobility scheme. We have recently relaunched that scheme; it gives elderly tenants in London the opportunity to downsize and move to more suitable and preferred locations. Since its relaunch some six months ago, this scheme has given more than 150 older tenants the opportunity to move and resulted in the freeing up of much-needed and often under-occupied properties in London. We are evaluating options for expanding nationally the work done by that scheme and other mobility options.
So if I can sum up, I suggest with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield that new clause 6 is unnecessary because we already have the legislative power to fund a national mobility scheme. Let me stress again the Government’s commitment and my own personal commitment to this. Mobility is a key priority for this Government, but I am very keen to avoid the mistakes of the past. We have already taken action to increase opportunities for local and sub-regional moves and we have put in place specific work and projects to determine the best way to deliver national housing mobility.

Andrew Love: The only reason I rise is to emphasise the importance given in the Hills review to the need for national mobility for economic reasons. While I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister has said about local and sub-regional mobility, it does appear from what he has said that perhaps not enough priority is being given to an effective national mobility scheme. It seems sensible to take a certain percentage of property in order to achieve that, but can he give us some more reassurance that this is a major priority for the Government?

Iain Wright: Yes, it is a major priority because a progressive Government should facilitate social mobility to ensure greater economic prosperity. This is absolutely key, and as I have said, the vast majority of moves will be local and sub-regional, but it is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton rightly says, that for economic purposes we have that national scheme. It has not worked well in the past, and as we move the Hills agenda forward in the next few months and years I do see it as a major priority to tap into the talent and enterprise of everybody in this country and ensure that they can take advantage of opportunities and achieve prosperity. National mobility schemes are a way to do that, so it will become even more of a priority for this Labour Government.
I hope I have explained the policy. There is cross-party consensus on this very important issue, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause.

Grant Shapps: I thank the Minister for what was a full, although I suspect not very enlightening, response. He read beautifully from his eight-page brief on the subject, but it was noticeable that the answer was actually missing. There is a hotch-potch of schemes out there, but unless the Government actually grasp the issue and pull them all together, it is almost irrelevant whether the power to fund schemes exists in the Housing and Local Government Act 1989, because we do not know the time scale within which the Government intend to act. I appreciate what the Minister says about the review that was launched last month; I thought that there might be some comment on that review as we debated the Bill, and I am disappointed that there has not been.
We need the Government to commit to a time scale within which they will come up with something more solid than the vagueness contained within the many pages of answer to this debate. Will it be possible, by the time the Bill is discussed on Report, for the Minister to come back to the House with a time scale that would be appropriate for fulfilling the obvious desire that exists on both sides of the House?

Iain Wright: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s tenacity in pushing me on this. He had made a request for further work before Report, and that is something that I am happy to consider, but as I have said, I do not want to introduce measures in a haphazard manner. This is an important policy objective; we want to get it right to avoid the mistakes of the past, but I shall certainly do my best to bring it back on Report.

Grant Shapps: I remind the Minister that the Government have had 11 years to get it right, and it would not be rushing it to try to put something in place—perhaps not a scheme, but an idea of a direction or a time scale—on Report. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 19

National Tenants’ Voice
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for the establishment of a body to be known as the National Tenants’ Voice.
(2) The objects of the National Tenants’ Voice shall include the following—
(a) to represent the interests of tenants in the social rented sector;
(b) to act as an advocate for tenants to the Regulator of Social Housing, providers of housing accommodation, Communities England, other government departments and bodies, mortgage lenders and others;
(c) to carry out and promote research into matters affecting the interests of tenants;
(d) to evaluate the effects of policies and practice, both national and local, on tenants;
(e) to promote good practice in matters affecting the interests of tenants;
(f) to give support and assistance to national tenants’ representative organisations and where appropriate to foster co-ordination of activities and mutual support; and
(g) to perform such other functions as may be prescribed.
(3) In subsection (2), “tenants” shall include those who occupy accommodation under periodic or fixed term tenancies or under long leases, and other lawful residential occupiers who receive housing services from providers of social housing.
(4) The Secretary of State shall by regulation make provision for the constitution and composition of the National Tenants’ Voice, for membership of its governing body, for the determination of procedures, for the establishment of executive and administrative support, and for the delivery of reports and accounts.’.—[Lembit Öpik.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lembit Öpik: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would establish a national tenants’ voice, which would provide advocacy, support and research services and promote good practice in matters affecting the interests of tenants. The creation of a national tenants’ voice was envisaged in the Cave review, which was published in June 2007. Perhaps even more important, following the publication of the Hills report on social housing in February 2007, the Government are pursuing an agenda of radical reform, as the Minister himself says. That means that we are in a period of flux and uncertainty as we do not know all the details yet. The changes under consideration include periodic reviews of tenant circumstances, the recently published action plan on overcrowding, the upcoming review of the housing revenue account and questions about how housing providers are monitored and regulated.
This is the time for a national tenants’ voice. The Cave review said that a national tenants’ voice should be established
“to be an advocate for tenants in national debates and undertake dialogue with the government, regulators and providers’ representative bodies, on more equal terms.”
It goes on to propose that
“there should be consultation on the core standards for social housing and that this should be an early focus for the new national tenant voice. The performance of service providers will be judged against the standards that are developed.”
A national tenants’ voice could also act as an advocate for tenants in the private rented sector, which we have returned to a number of times in the Committee’s proceedings. Often, private tenants are in a vulnerable position. They live in the worst conditions and have relatively little security of tenure. They have almost no say about their rent, and they often feel in an inferior position when it comes to dealing with their landlord. The Minister may consider siting the national tenants’ voice in the National Consumer Council, but Shelter, which feels very strongly about the need for such a voice, does not think that permanently locating it in the council is appropriate.

Robert Syms: When the hon. Gentleman says national does he mean English?

Lembit Öpik: Yes, I do mean English. The Bill as it pertains to proceedings is exclusively in relation to England. Scotland and Wales have their own settlements and report respectively to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Shelter feels that it is inappropriate to site the national tenants’ voice within the NCC. It thinks that such a voice should be free-standing and independent, hence the wording of new clause 19. Once again, I hope that the Minister will take a sympathetic view on this matter, which follows directly from the Cave review.

Iain Wright: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for introducing the new clause. However, I do not think that it is necessary. As I think that he said, the Government are committed to establishing a national tenants’ voice to represent and advise tenants. Martin Cave argued strongly for such an organisation to ensure that the interests of tenants, like our housing professionals and advisers, are effectively represented when national and regional decisions are taken on issues that affect them. On Second Reading and onwards, we have had eloquent speeches about how social housing tenants often do not get a good standard of service. Many social housing tenants do not have what is known as exit power; they cannot choose to leave. Some tenants have to endure bad housing standards in silence. Therefore, the role of the national tenants’ voice is extremely important, especially in the light of the other pieces of architecture that we are constructing in the Bill in respect of the regulator and so on.
We consulted on this issue in summer 2007. The response from tenant groups and housing associations was extremely positive. Some 65 per cent. of those who responded supported the idea of a national tenants’ voice, with a further 29 per cent. giving qualified support. Only 6 per cent. were not in favour. I have had tenant groups in my office and they advocated very strongly the idea of a national tenants’ voice.
On that basis, we are very committed to existing national tenant organisations, such as Tenants and Residents Organisations of England, the National Federation of Tenant Management Organisations, and the Confederation of Co-operative Housing. Such organisations need to play a key role in the establishment of a national tenants’ voice. They feel that it is very important that tenants should have a role in managing the organisation. One option is to locate the national tenants’ voice within the new National Consumer Council when it is formed.
The new council will be established later this year under powers set out in the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007. It will bring together the current National Consumer Council, Energywatch and Postwatch to create a much more powerful and streamlined consumer body. Our view is that there are considerable advantages in locating the national tenants’ voice within the new organisation. It will, for example, strengthen both its advocacy and research functions. On that basis, we have set up a project group, involving key stakeholders, such as tenant organisations, to take forward those proposals. The group will meet first in late February or early March and will be tasked with advising us on the details of the remit, location and governance structure of the NTV. As part of that, it will hold discussions with the new National Consumer Council about its role and the viability of locating the NTV within the NCH.
I stress to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and the wider Committee that discussions cannot take place until the new council has been appointed. We expect that to happen in February, and we anticipate the project group completing its work by the end of the year.

Andrew Love: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about a national tenants’ voice. I wanted to make the plea that we should not forget tenant representation at a local level. From my own experience, it is incredibly patchy, and if we do not have representation at a local level, the national level will not mean very much. I ask the Minister not to forget local representation, and to do what he can to ensure that we get proper coverage at a local level.

Iain Wright: As ever, my hon. Friend is correct. We have had many debates during the last few sittings about the need for the regulator, and to ensure that tenants’ voices are not lost with regard to standards. The regulator will be a powerful driver in ensuring that we raise housing standards, and to ensure that tenants are consulted and engaged on a regular basis at a local level.
I think that tenants organisations should be involved in setting up the governance arrangements of the national tenants’ voice, as they have been in local discussions, and in the decision whether it should be sited in the national consumer council. It is not correct for me, the Secretary of State or other Government Ministers to establish a particular form for the national tenants’ voice. There will be a project group, and given what I have said about the importance of tenants’ voices being heard at local and national level, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause.

Lembit Öpik: The Minister has said that at this stage he does not want to establish a particular form, but at the same time he is establishing one. He says that he believes that the national tenants’ voice should be contained within the National Consumer Council. I do not disagree in principle, but I have issues with that. Shelter holds the view that the NCC will give the tenants’ voice insufficient power and authority to dispatch its duty to the millions of people who are tenants in and around the country.
The Minister said that 65 per cent. of those surveyed supported the idea of a national tenants’ voice. Shelter has provided outstanding support to myself and other hon. Members during the passage of the Bill, and I thank it for that. Shelter is not trying to create arbitrary free-standing institutions for the sake of it. It wants to ensure that a tenants’ voice is worthy of the name. I hope that the Minister will reflect on new clause 19, and that in informal conversations we can pursue the matter further. We all want the same thing—to ensure that it works. In order to provide space for that further dialogue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 274

Orders and regulations

Amendment made: No. 29, in clause 274, page 116, line 19, at end insert—
‘( ) an order under section 14(8),’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Clause 274, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7

Amendments of enactments: Part 1

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in schedule 7, page 158, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 159 and insert—
‘(4) Omit subsection (2).’.
This is a straightforward and technical amendment. It omits subsection (2) of section 8(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. As I am sure members of the Committee will recollect from our debate on Government amendment No. 23, we have amended the Bill to ensure that some non-local planning authority functions, such as the duty to keep registers of enforcement notices may be given to the Homes and Communities Agency concurrently with the existing body under a designation order. Subsection (2) of section 8(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that where the agency has non-local planning authority functions conferred on it in relation to a designated area, the agency will be the local planning authority in place of the existing body. That removes the powers of the existing body and slots the agency into the planning regime where functions have been conferred. We no longer want that in all cases, so we tabled amendment No. 23. The amendment is consequential to the acceptance of amendment No. 23.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 275 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10

Repeals

Amendments made: No. 123, in schedule 10, page 166, line 5, at end insert—
‘Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (c. 88)
In section 1—
(a) in subsections (1)(a) and (1A), the words “at a low rent”,
(b) in subsection (3A)(b), the words “, 1AA”.
Section 1A(2).
Section 1AA.
Section 4A.
In section 9(1C), the words “, 1AA”.
In section 9A(1), the words “, 1AA”.
In section 32A(1)(b), the words “or if section 1AA above were not in force”.
In Schedule 3, paragraph 6(1A).’.
No. 303, in schedule 10, page 168, line 22, at end insert—
‘Housing Act 1988 (c. 50)
Section 81(6).
Section 133(6).’.
No. 124, in schedule 10, page 168, line 22, column 2, at end insert—
‘In Schedule 5, in paragraph 13(5), the word “and” following paragraph (a).’.

—[Mr. Wright.]

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in schedule 10, page 168, line 24, at end insert—
‘Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)
Section 8A(2).’.
This is a straightforward and technical amendment adding section 8A(2) of the 1990 Act to the list of legislation being repealed. For the reasons set out a few moments ago on Government amendment No. 30, subsection (2) is no longer necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 125, in schedule 10, page 168, line 25, column 2, at beginning insert—
‘Section 65.’.
No. 126, in schedule 10, page 168, line 41, column 2, at end insert—
‘Section 105(2).’.
No. 127, in schedule 10, page 168, line 47, column 2, at end insert—
‘In Schedule 9, paragraphs 1 and 2(2), (4), (5), (6) and (8).’.
No. 304, in schedule 10, page 168, line 47, at end insert—
‘In Schedule 2, in paragraph 11(4)—
(a) “or the Housing Corporation”, and
(b) “or, as the case may be, the Housing Corporation”.’.
No. 305, in schedule 10, page 169, line 12, after ‘paragraphs’ insert ‘68(a),’.
No. 306, in schedule 10, page 169, line 12, leave out ‘and 94’ and insert ‘94 and 97(3)’.
No. 128, in schedule 10, page 169, line 24, at end insert—
‘Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (c. 15)
Section 141.’.

—[Mr. Wright.]

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 276 to 278 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 279

Commencement

Amendments made: No. 129, in clause 279, page 118, line 6, after ‘273’ insert ‘and Schedule (Demolition notices)’.
No. 130, in clause 279, page 118, line 8, after ‘of’ insert
‘, and paragraph 13(5) of Schedule 5 to,’.
No. 131, in clause 279, page 118, line 13, after ‘259,’ insert
‘(Right to acquire freehold: abolition of low rent test), (Shared ownership leases: protection for certain limited equity leases), (Shared ownership leases: protection for hard to replace houses),’.
No. 132, in clause 279, page 118, line 13, after ‘265,’ insert
‘(Former right to buy and other flats: equity share purchases),’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in clause 279, page 118, line 14, leave out from ‘to’ to end of line 18 and insert
‘repeals which are connected to the provisions mentioned in paragraph (b) above’.
Again, the amendment is of a purely technical nature. Clause 279 sets out the procedures relating to the commencement of the Bill and allows certain provisions to be commenced separately by the Secretary of State in England and by Welsh Ministers in Wales. Those provisions are listed in subsection 3(b), and the associated repeals in schedule 10 are listed in subsection 3(c). I hope that is useful to hon. Members and that they will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Lembit Öpik: The commencement clause relates to England and Wales. I have one specific request that I hope the Minister will grant. Can he assure us that, before the commencement of the legislation, there will be a meeting at ministerial level with his opposite numbers in the Welsh Assembly who manage housing? I make that request because there are interrelations between the jurisdiction in Wales and that in Westminster. In the past, I have observed some friction between those two political institutions in establishing the territory and domain of their jurisdictions, so it would be better to have those conversations before commencement rather than scrapping about it once the Act comes into force. I hope that the Minister can assure us that a high-level ministerial meeting will take place before commencement of the legislation.

Nick Raynsford: Can my hon. Friend the Minister give the Committee some indication about the overall time scale for implementation of the parts of the Bill? As he knows by looking at clause 279, parts of the Bill will come into effect two months after the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. Other parts are subject to provisions made by the Secretary of State, which involves different dates. Can my hon. Friend give any indication about the time scale over which all the Bill’s provisions are expected to be brought into effect? I know from past experience that some Bills include parts that are never effected, and it would be helpful to have an indication about the overall time scale by which all the Bill’s provisions are likely to be effective. I do not expect an answer today as it is a complex area, but it would be helpful to have that indication on Report.

Iain Wright: My right hon. Friend has made a good point. I will endeavour on Report to advise the House about the enactment of the various clauses and parts of the Bill. The point raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire about a high-level ministerial meeting between English and Welsh Ministers seems perfectly sensible, and I will do my best to ensure that it happens.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 279, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 280 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,
That certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.—[Mr. Wright.]

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Grant Shapps: May I say thank you very much for your chairmanship, Mr. Benton, and also that of Mr. Gale during what has been an enjoyable and informative Committee? I also take the opportunity to thank the Clerks and the officials who have worked tirelessly all month on the Bill. It is the first time that I have sat on a Committee, and it has been a great honour. I was fortunate because two titans from the housing world were on the Back Benches. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire were a pleasure to watch in action; they were great mentors. It was particularly interesting to debate with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and sometimes to agree with him. I was enormously grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire. On one particular occasion, he rescued me when I had lost my notes.
The way in which the Committee has proceeded has been very satisfactory. Thanks are due to the Minister for the way in which he has behaved and acted. It has almost gone down as a mantra that he will thank an hon. Member for a well-put argument and say that he wholeheartedly agrees, but then explain why it is impossible to accept their amendment. He does that with such panache and in such a well meaning way that it is impossible to feel any malice.
The Minister’s performance has been worthy of a Secretary of State. I am sad that he was not promoted last week.

Iain Wright: Carry on.

Grant Shapps: It is the kiss of death, Minister, but I will carry on. The Minister would be a very worthy holder of office as Secretary of State, and I have no doubt that in the future he will be in the Cabinet, though sadly only for a brief period before we take over.
Thank you once again, Mr. Benton, for your tremendous chairmanship.

Lembit Öpik: I, too, extend my heartfelt gratitude to the Clerks and the officials. I arrived on the scene in the middle of the process, after my new leader’s wise appointment of me. However, I have been in office longer than the Minister’s new boss, so I feel like an old hand.
The Clerks are extremely understanding and generous with their time and have helped us to put together amendments that achieve the meaning and intent of the Bill. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members feel the same.
Mr. Benton, you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Gale, have been gracious even in moments of great confusion, particularly on Tuesday when I was caught up short and momentarily distracted and ended up busking it in a most blatant and obvious way. Nevertheless, Mr. Gale was still gentle with me. Mr. Benton, you, too, have shown an expeditious and erudite approach in chairing the Committee.
Finally, I turn to the Minister. As we have already heard from the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, the Minister demonstrates the strange art of accepting every point that one makes and then rejecting the amendments that go with it. It reminds me of a phrase I heard when I was first elected—the art of diplomacy is to say no in such a way that the other person apologises. In a sense, I felt that the Minister displayed that skill. Nevertheless, the people of Hartlepool can rightly be proud of his performance in this Committee. I look forward to visiting Hartlepool in less confrontational circumstances than those in which I first met the Minister, which involved the by-election that thrust him into Parliament and now into power.
Setting sail with my new portfolio has been an interesting and instructive experience. I hope that on Report we can return to some of the areas which, as the Minister has pointed out, were open to further consideration. At that point, perhaps the Government will accept a few of the Opposition amendments that were proposed in good faith, apparently accepted in principle, but rejected in practice.

Iain Wright: I have three hours and 27 minutes. I give notice to the Committee that I intend to take every second of that time. I thank the hon. Members for Welwyn Hatfield and for Montgomeryshire for their kind comments.
Foremost, I thank you, Mr. Benton, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Gale, for your professionalism, courtesy, charm, wit and efficiency in managing the Committee. During our proceedings, I learned that Mr. Gale is a trade union shop steward in his spare time. Certainly, he has been standing up for his fellow hon. Members and their staff and families in the media this week.
I also thank the Clerk for her excellent work and the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers for helping to make the business of the Committee, including 280 clauses, 10 schedules and 300 amendments—mostly my own—very smooth. I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield that this has been a good-natured and well meaning Committee. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s tenacity, although I think he spent too long on HIPs—I hope that he has his new HIP now. He has been an excellent Front-Bench spokesman, as has the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire.
I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friends. First, I thank the Whip for the Committee’s smooth operation. Despite our forensic scrutiny of the Bill, we are finishing a sitting early. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough for her sterling work in providing me with information. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, who has almost single-handedly changed Government policy to ensure that the Homes and Communities Agency will take sustainable development into account. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham for her impatience with me and for her sterling work on overcrowding and on ensuring that tenants have decent housing standards, regardless of where they live. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South for her work on domestic violence—I hope that we can move that work forward—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton. I have taken no pleasure in hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush talk about how Hammersmith and Fulham housing has deteriorated since he ran it, because that is not particularly good for the tenants. However, the manner in which he has done that and bashed the Opposition has been a delight to hear. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has been a tremendous advocate of work on social housing and ensuring that tenants receive fantastic value for money and good standards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has been tremendous; his knowledge of this policy area is second to none. He has been extraordinarily helpful to me, and I thank him for helping to improve the Bill through his contributions.
I cannot sit down without paying tribute to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, who has been tremendous and extremely courteous. He has often played with me as a cat plays with a mouse before killing it, but has done so with such panache and courtesy that I cannot take issue with him; he is such a gentleman. I have been reading his blog. Let me quote some of his comments:
“Not all the work of an MP is glamorous, any more than is the life of a popstar. The political equivalent of endless hours in a recording studio in the East End of London is a month on a Public Bill Committee. Every Tuesday and Thursday in January is being spent by your MP examining, line by line, the Housing and Regeneration Bill—a modest piece of legislation with 280 Clauses and countless Schedules.”
Given the choice, I think that I would rather be a pop star than in this Committee Room, but I know what he means.
Finally, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, whom I consider to be a friend. A few days ago, he received the ultimate accolade, a profile in The Sunday Times magazine. He has some courage: he called Mr. Gale “dozy”, which takes some doing. Keeping with the pop star theme, I recall a group called Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich, although it is a bit before my time. Let me quote the first bit of The Sunday Times magazine article:
“On a poetically sloe-black, slow black”—
very “Under Milk Wood”—
“night in Wales, the young people of Newtown are herding into the pubs. One of them is the local MP, 42 years old but somehow still a boy in his baggy jeans and short-sleeved shirt, his arms pale and beefy on a cold winter’s night. Lembit Opik is playing pool in his local, the Grapes, with friends no older than their early twenties. They are snogging and joshing as their MP takes his shot next to the television where they let him watch Question Time on Thursdays.”
I said to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire this week that I had been having nightmares about the Office for National Statistics classification, but I have also been having nightmares about “snogging and joshing” and “pale and beefy”. I suggest that if we take this pop star theme a little further, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire could have a duet with his romantic interest, and the name of the group could be Dave Dee, Dozy, Pale Beef, Beaky, Cheeky, Mick and Tich. I thought that that would get more of a laugh—it took me quite some time to think of.
I will not take up too much time, but I am particularly proud that this is an important and significant Bill, designed to help all in the country with regard to their housing needs. Thanks to the high quality scrutiny—forensic, even—that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have applied, the Bill leaves this stage a better Bill, and I thank all hon. Members for their work in that regard.
Finally, I thank my officials, who have worked extremely hard and often extremely late on the Bill and our amendments to it in the previous months. At any point in the Committee where I have looked good, it has been thanks to them. When I have looked bad, it is because I have chosen to go on my own. It is a tribute to their professionalism that they are keen to have a meeting tonight at 5 o’clock to discuss the Report stage. That shows how keen, committed and professional they are, so I thank them all very much for what they have done. I thank the Committee, Mr. Gale and you, Mr. Benton. I do not think that there is any more to be said.

Joe Benton: On behalf of Mr. Gale and myself, I express our thanks to the Minister, the Opposition spokesmen and all members of the Committee for the courtesy and co-operation that has been extended to us at all times. I have particularly enjoyed the Committee, because housing is a great love of mine. The Minister has mentioned visiting my constituency, where we have a huge housing market renewal project, and it was a delight to have him there on that day. The Committee has been full of interest, and I compliment all of its members on their input and wish the Bill success.
On behalf of Mr. Gale and myself, I extend our thanks to the learned Clerk, who has performed excellently, the official staff, the Doorkeepers and the police who have made the Committee so effective.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at eight minutes past Ten o’clock.